Evidence of meeting #60 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Would there be any other portion of this bill or a loophole that would allow that information to be shared beyond the commission and the panel?
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
As the bill is constructed right now, the confidential information remains in the hands of the CRTC. This would be an expansion of that, and since the panel or the arbitration roster is composed of individuals from the private sector, from other sectors, it would be an expansion of the individuals with whom confidential information could be shared.
Liberal
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have one more question for Mr. Ripley.
Given this phrase in the amendment, “any terms that the Commission considers necessary”, it seems that this amendment then allows for the proactive offering of information even before it's required.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
This is what I believe MP Julian is seeking to do: The commission is the entity in possession of the confidential information, so they're the only entity, other than the person whose confidential information it is, that can assess whether or not it's relevant. Indeed, it relies on their judgment to assess, given the arbitration in question, whether there's information they feel the panel should know.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Right. Information could be sought out pre-emptively without needing evidence for it, because it's at their discretion.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
It's at their discretion. With the way the bill is constructed right now, in the context of final offer arbitration, the decision the arbitration panel would be making would be based on the information provided by the two parties in their two offers. That's the information the arbitration panel would have in their possession.
What MP Julian is proposing to do is to provide an opportunity or a mechanism to the commission, if it were in possession of other information that it thought was relevant but that was confidential, to share that with the arbitration panel.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think Mr. Bittle's subamendment is brilliant and I'm supporting it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
(Subamendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 36 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 37 agreed to on division)
(On clause 38)
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being up so early this morning in British Columbia. I know first-hand how working on eastern time and getting up at 4:30 in the morning is a challenge, so thank you for being here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Peter, when I was in Vancouver, I had to do this every Friday for the medical assistance in dying committee. I thought I had dodged that bullet today, but I haven't, obviously.
Thank you.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you for your availability.
NDP-25 was originally proposed by Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, which represents many of the journalists across the country.
What NDP-25 is seeking to do is broaden the transparency of Bill C-18 to ensure that we know about the value of the deal. It allows arbitrators to request information when they're making decisions in the arbitration process. That helps in terms of structuring decisions to be as informed as possible, hopefully, so that the new negotiations with big tech will result in more supports for community newspapers, for online publishers, and for the ethnic press across the country so that we can have more journalists doing the excellent work they do.
I move NDP-25.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Very quickly, again, I believe it's well intentioned, but I believe this moves us away from fair negotiations under the bill and it hurts the bargaining powers of news organizations.
Thank you.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I will request a recorded vote on this particular amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On NDP-26, go ahead, Peter.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
We will recall that this amendment was proposed during testimony from several organizations in the Fédération nationale des communications et de la culture.
The amendment states that consideration should be given in the bargaining process to the imbalance of bargaining power between the news business and operator of the digital news intermediary concerned.
I therefore propose amendment NDP‑26.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 38 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 39)
On clause 39, we have amendment CPC-25.
Mrs. Thomas, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Amendment CPC-25 is intended to make the criteria less arbitrary or discretionary. It's intended to consider both sides of the coin, both investments and expenditures involved in making news content available. We feel that this would help make the legislation more well rounded and take into account all factors involved in both the creation of news and the sharing of news content.